Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you want to define homosexuality so that paraphililic attractions isn’t part of the equation, no? The consequence is that it allows allows opposite-sex attracted people to be classified as homosexuals. So paraphilic lesbians who are exclusively attracted to female people but in a paraphilic way would be excluded from the lesbian category, instead paraphilic bisexual women where the opposite-sex attraction is paraphilic are included as paraphilic opposite-sex attraction here wouldn’t exclude anyone from being categorized as homosexual. The homosexual category wouldn’t be saved from paraphilic inclusion either way then, the only difference is whether these paraphilic people would be lesbian or bisexual. Personally I see including non-lesbians as lesbians are a bigger problem than including paraphilic people per se. In my experience paraphilic lesbians seem more likely to understand that their paraphilia makes them different from other lesbians and are less likely to expect normophilic lesbians to be like them while lesbian-identifying bisexuals (who may or may not be paraphilic) often do expect lesbians to share their bisexuality, aka think lesbians who aren’t male-attracted like them must be bigots.

Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia

And if they are male-attracted they would be bisexual or homosexual and if they are AGP and heterosexual then they aren’t LGB. I think male-attracted male AGPs can face same-sex discrimination due their same-sex attraction, someone who is against same-sex activities probably doesn’t care if the male-attracted males are AGP or not. But I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination. Really, they do deserve a great deal of scrutiny and social disapprobation they have been receiving, but they want to call this discrimination instead. AGP who are having sex with men face all sorts of issues. Their admirers face issues. No doubts about it. I've never suggested they should be chucked in the gulag or something, just for being AGP or GAMP. They have a right to self-determination so long as they're not stepping on any one else. But people, please, we're trying to have a society over here, and if you want to be a part of that, you have to tell us who you are.

I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves. Perhaps if they were (collectively) more humble, then I could see them getting along. They do have some overlap, at the end of the day, it is men having sex with men. What I would do for practicality is thematically group sexual minorities into their own rights movements, and nothing would prevent dual membership, necessarily, nor would these groups have to be at war with each other. I would say that plain LGB have a cohesive goal. That's one group. Identity-based paraphilias like AGP and autoanthromorphozoophilia, that's another group. The sadomasochists can go hang out over there, etc.

With regard to the rest of the topic, I'm afraid we're conceptualizing of motivations for paraphilia and normal sex so fundamentally differently that we can't resolve at this point.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

I think we should be able to recognize that paraphilic people can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these paraphilic people, the same way we can recognize murderers can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these murderers. The existence of homosexual/bisexual murders doesn’t mean LGB must put effort on ending the “discrimination” murderers face for being murderers though as that’s irrelevant to the LGB, so it’s same with paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals, if the discrimination they face isn’t tied to their same-sex attraction then that discrimination isn’t a case for the LGB. We also shouldn't inaccurately put paraphilic people in categories they don’t belong to so a heterosexual AAP female who calls herself a "gay man" shouldn’t be put in the LGB at all, as she is not same-sex attracted in the first place.

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves

My guess is that the male-attracted AGPs who are the most likely to make a group all about themselves are those who want to be validated as "women" so if we allowed them to be part of a “men loving men” group they wouldn’t be very motivated to make this group all about themselves as they would see the membership itself as invalidating to them (speculating of course).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A man who likes other men because he's a man and he finds men sexually appealing is different than a man who has autogynephilia and is instead trying to engage in woman-typical behavior to satisfy the sexually gratifying abstract idea that he's a woman, by having sex with men. I don't have a personal problem with this behavior, beyond the public health issue largely revolving around HIV.

Can you reduce it just down to men having sex with men? Sure, you can, but that kind of reductionalism has consequences, which I'm sure you agree with. The real issue that we're trying to debate is what the outcome of these semantics are. It has impacts as to which rights movement people belong to, and how they're going to get along with the rest of the people who were already there and have a legitimate heritage with it. What sort of deleterious consequences exist to threaten the legacy of that rights movement, and perhaps move everyone back a step, or worse.

A more plain example would be people who want to molest children, bolt themselves to LGBT, and subsequently destroy the whole enterprise. It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males, and if you reduce this down to same-sex attraction, and only treat that as the locus, you'll find yourself in a whole heap of trouble. Not that I want to lump AGP and child molestation into the same category, I think AGP can be ethically acted on, but you see the point.

That's an extreme example, but it is true of all sorts of paraphilias. If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex, and no other details, then you're potentially opening the floodgates. If that's what you want, then expect me to stand in your way.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you think we have a moral obligation to not include paraphilic people in the LGB then you should define homosexuality and bisexuality as exclusive to normophilic people, i.e, having a paraphilia should get a person excluded from the sexual orientation taxonomy altogether. I would respect that position for being coherent as that indeed would exclude all paraphilic people from the LGB. But here you seem argue it’s wrong to include paraphilic people, yet you don’t want to define sexual orientation as exclusive to normophilic people so in actuality you do want to include the paraphilic people, just in other categories by only counting their normophilic attractions in the taxonomy.

hat kind of reductionalism has consequences

And so does your reductionalism as we lose half of information if we can’t count the sex of the paraphilic attractions in the taxonomy. I am not against bisexual people refactoring bisexuality as they please, you do you. But when you want to redefine homosexuality then that negatively affects me and other homosexuals.

The main beneficiaries of your redefinition of homosexuality would be non-homosexual paraphilic people who would be miscategorized as homosexual as their opposite-sex attractions no longer excludes them if it’s paraphilic which might gratify the paraphilias themselves. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women with GAMP would find being miscategorized as lesbians validating to both their GAMP paraphilias and their male sexual partners. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women who have like role-playing lesbians who getting correctively raped by men due to submissive attraction to men would also find being miscategorized as lesbians as validating to their submissive kinks, this miscategorization would also gratify their male sexual partners who are into converting lesbians. The main losers of your redefinition would be the normophilic homosexuals as homosexuality would be redefined to a type of bisexuality by removing the monosexual requirement. If I have to be in the same category as male-attracted women even in the lesbian category I don’t see why we have a lesbian category at all, it would mainly be for those who have a kink for the label itself. We could just have one big joint lesbian/bisexual category then as there would be no real difference between bisexual and lesbian in this definition.

It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males

Is there a consensus that boys would get molested more than girls? Stats usually say girls get molested twice the male rate. Or do you mean the gay pedophiles are just better at controlling their desires than the straight pedophiles? Anyway, it’s not that unusual for a pedophile to only be into children of one sex, so why not call that sex specificity for what it is when it’s relevant? A straight pedophile is more specific than just pedophile and you are for specificity, no?

If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex

If you think bisexual is too big of a category then divide it to smaller categories. I am not against you being as granular as you want as long you don’t redefine homosexuality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

homosexuality

People who desire only their same, age appropriate sex strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts.

That's it. That's my definition of homosexuality. You're completely off the rails in your interpretation of my words, or you're deliberately trying to twist them.

Good day.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

People who desire only their same, age appropriate sex strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts.

That is not the definition you have used in similar context as you think a man with GAMP can he heterosexual (which you have said elsewhere in this thread) which implies you think a woman with GAMP can be a lesbian unless you use a more sex specific definition for homosexuality than heterosexuality. Or maybe you have changed your stance since then, in that case I didn't know you had changed your stance on it.

EDIT: Or you mean this definition isn't meant to be exclusionary allowing this person to have a paraphilic opposite-sex attractions simultaneously and still be count as homosexual in this definition, then it leads to the problems I specified above.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That is not the definition you have used in similar context as you think a man with GAMP can he heterosexual

I'll respond, because another poster, /u/Vulvamort, had the same question, that may not have been sufficiently answered.

I said that a paraphilia of gyneandromorphophilia can coexist alongside of a desire for age appropriate opposite sex partners strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts--heterosexuality. This is an empirical fact, not a hypothetical. Gyneandromorphophilia only appears to exist in men. That does not mean that gyneandromorphs are necessarily excluded from women's pool of sexual partners. Gyneandromorpophilia refers to a particular sexual motivation, not a behavior. (Such as if you paid me 1 million dollars to have sex with a gyneandromorph, I would collect that million dollars.) When I said they can be heterosexual, I was indicating that they may not be 100% GAMP, and they usually are not. Typically they like both women and trans women (GAMs,) in varying proportions. People only with the paraphilia of GAMP appear to exist, and they often appear to have been at one point having no interest in GAMs, just normal women. Once this paraphilically vulnerable person discovers the existence of "women" with penises, it is possible for them to loose their interest in normal women in exclusive exchange for their new-found interest in gyneandromorphs.

Now, I could see how my statement that a man who likes highly feminized men--that they can be heterosexual--is at face value an absurd thing, but the heterosexuality only refers to one portion of their overall sexual makeup, the other part being GAMP. Heterosexual is not the complete package.

Consequent to that, the way I'm using the word heterosexual isn't to say that if a man is labeled heterosexual, that they can never be interested in men, but may only have an interest in men on the basis of a paraphilia. If a man has an interest in men the same way that a gay man does, then heterosexuality is off the table. Incidentally, GAMPs are not interested in men men.

I do not treat paraphilias as qualifiers to heterosexuality, in the way that a man may have a preference for blondes. If I did, then my insistence that a man who likes feminized men is somehow heterosexual would then be a contradiction. This is due to my understanding of the phenomena, which I share with many sex researchers, that paraphilic interests are as unique and alive as standalone things as heterosexuality is. GAMP is probably the most difficult one to talk about, because of its similarity to the het/homo/bisexualities. If we were instead talking about something such as erotic asphyxiation, it would be easier, and we would probably readily agree that waterboarding a person for sexual gratification isn't anything like the way that the overwhelming majority get theirs, and needs a different classification. Likewise, if a person only wanted to have sex with women and waterboard men, then I assume that most people would agree that "bisexual" is an inappropriate label, or at least highly questionable, for our Geneva-convention-violating agent. Because I don't treat paraphilias as qualifiers, they cannot be included in the definition of het/homo/bi, because these three are about sex, not waterboarding.

It's a personal policy that if I concede a point to another person, or make a conceptual shift in a discussion, that I'll say as much. I don't want to be the smartest person in the room, because then I'm not learning anything.

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Gyneandromorphophilia only appears to exist in men.

I’ve talked to too many paraphilic women to buy Blanchard’s theory that paraphilic women would be super rare. I've also talked women who seem very GAMP.

heterosexuality only refers to one portion of their overall sexual makeup

If removing all sexual attractions to female people wouldn’t make a man asexual then said man isn’t hetersexual.

Heterosexual is not the complete package.

Hetersexual isn’t the complete package regarding sexuality in general as there are also other properties than the sex property that would further reduce the pool of people the person would consider potential sexual partner. Hetersexual is the complete package regarding regarding sex orientation though as the job of a sexual orientation is to give a complete list of the sexes the person might be interested in having sex with.

which I share with many sex researchers

Sex reaseachers are interested in the etiology of things, and the etiology and the orientation are not the same thing. But even in etiology there would be a difference between the two groups as something would have caused these men to develop in different ways, making one group GAMP and the other heterosexual.

If we were instead talking about something such as erotic asphyxiation, it would be easier, and we would probably readily agree that waterboarding a person for sexual gratification isn't anything like the way that the overwhelming majority get theirs, and needs a different classification.

I still consider the sex of the person they want to be waterboarded by of importance in sexual orientation taxanomy. A person who only wants normophilic sex with females and also only want to be waterboarded by female people still show a female sex specificity. And if the person doesn’t care who they get waterboarded by for sexual gratification then that person lacks the monosexual property of always caring about the sex of the person doing sexual stuff to them. The sex of the actor can only be ignored if the person doing the waterboarding isn’t involved at all in the process and therefore can’t turn the monsexual person off with their presence, maybe is in another room, and only there to push the button as the person doesn’t have a device to push the button themselves.

A person who is sexually turned off by people of the wrong sex only in the context of sexual encounters that are normophilic isn’t someone I consider monsoexual at all. They show a sex flexibility that monosexual people lack.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’ve talked to too many paraphilic women to buy Blanchard’s theory that paraphilic women would be super rare.

I also refute the idea that paraphilias are rare to nonexistent in women.